D. GNANASEKARAN Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo and consequently for a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's candidature for empanelment and promotion as Forester.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: He was initially appointed as Watchman on 10.06.1998. He was promoted as Office Assistant in the year 1991. Thereafter, he was appointed as Forest Guard by transfer of service on 11.10.2000. He was placed under suspension on 26.01.2010. However, the said order was cancelled on 10.03.2010. He was issued with a charge memo on 15.03.2010 by the second respondent under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, alleging that he failed to submit the original 10th Standard certificate. For appointment as Forest Guard, by transfer of service, no educational qualification is required except the physical fitness of the candidate. The requirement of the educational qualification was made only in the year 2001 by issuing G.O.MS.No.41, wherein Plus Two was prescribed as educational qualification. Since the petitioner's appointment was earlier to the said G.O., he cannot be found fault with. After the lapse of ten years from the date of appointment, the above charge memo was issued. An enquiry was conducted, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved. The petitioner submitted further representation on 22.03.2011 and 02.08.2011, pointing out that the educational qualification was not required during the relevant period of his appointment. In the said representations, an error had crept in the translated version with regard to his community by wrongly stating as Scheduled Caste instead of Backward Class. Immediately, he forwarded another representation dated 21.03.2012, informing the above said mistake. Considering all the representations, the second respondent through proceedings dated 29.03.2012, had withdrawn the charges. The said withdrawal was without any reservation for issuing fresh charges. While that being so, the petitioner was once again issued with a fresh charge memo on 30.03.2012, leveling the very same allegations. Therefore, the impugned charge memo is challenged on the grounds of delay, maintainability and non application of mind.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is as follows: Both the charges are one and the same and therefore, having withdrawn the earlier charge memo, no fresh charge memo can be issued without reserving any right to do so. There is an inordinate delay of 12 years from the date of promotion and 16 years from the date of occurrence, in issuing the charge memo. Thus, as per the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005(4) CTC 403, P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board, the charges are liable to be quashed on the ground of delay. On the date of actual promotion, no educational qualification was required and only in the year 2001, a Government order introduced the requirement of educational qualification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be found fault with, even assuming that he has not produced the SSLC certificate. In this connection, the orders made in an unreported decisions in W.P.No.47241 of 2006 dated 22.09.2010 and W.P.No.42220 of 2006 dated 03.01.2011 are relied on. The petitioner did not get appointment based on the SSLC qualification but on the clarification letter dated 31.07.2000 issued, by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest.